GURUGRAM: The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has dismissed multiple complaints from homebuyers and residents, determining that the claims were either outside its jurisdiction or that the complainants had received previous statutory relief.
One case involved Anju Rani, a resident of Ardee City, who sought a refund of ₹75,000 for a maintenance security deposit. The Authority concluded that the dispute stemmed from a private resale transaction, which did not fall under the promoter–allottee relationship as outlined by the RERA Act, 2016. Rani contended that the deposit should be refunded once maintenance services were handed over to the municipal authority and that all dues were settled in 2022.
The respondents argued that the maintenance agency did not qualify as a “promoter” under the Act and that the transaction was strictly between private individuals. The Authority agreed with the respondents, stating that the issue was civil in nature and not within its jurisdiction.
In a separate matter, Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar rejected a complaint from Raj Kumar Chugh, who sought additional compensation due to delayed possession at the Ansal Highland Park project in Sector 103, developed by Identity Build-tech.
Chugh requested over ₹53 lakh in compensation, including claims for mental distress, legal fees, and rental losses. However, the Authority noted that a previous order issued on September 24, 2021, had already mandated the developer to pay interest at 9.3% per annum for each month of delay starting from April 2017 until the possession was handed over.
Kumar stated that according to Section 18 of the RERA Act, an allottee who remains engaged with the project is entitled to interest for delays but not separate compensation for the same issue.
Similar reasoning was applied in two complaints by Delhi resident Sandeep Bansal against developer IREO, concerning projects in Gurgaon. In these cases, Bansal sought additional compensation for delays in IREO City in Sector 60 and IREO Victory Valley in Sector 67, citing claims for rental loss and emotional distress.
The Authority dismissed both complaints, affirming that since Bansal had already received interest for the delay (including 10.4% per annum as per a 2018 order) and had not withdrawn from the projects, no further compensation was merited for the same claim. Throughout these cases, HRERA clarified that the regulatory framework primarily allows for interest on delays while additional compensation is typically applicable only when buyers exit the project or demonstrate distinct legal grounds. Consequently, all complaints were dismissed, and the files were directed to be archived.
